habit of using 'British citizen' and 'British subject' as interchangeable expressions. We enjoy an advantage over the Americans, who use only citizen,' in that we are able and not ashamed to call ourselves subjects of a King or Emperor, and can thus avoid the confusion which arises when citizen and subject are used synonymously. According to Dr Westlake, a citizen is an entity unknown to English law, except in the narrow sense of the 'burgher of a municipal corporation which enjoys the purely honorary rank of a city.'* There may be a legal citizen of London or Bristol. But there is none of Britain or Canada, still less of the Empire as a single State. If in its conventional use 'citizen' is a democratic term and implies a right of voting, there are in practice citizens of the United Kingdom, or of Canada or any other Dominion (though not of India, where the form of government is non-elective). But there are still no citizens of the Empire, because there is no common government of the Empire in which all British subjects may take part according to a common electoral law. If we had Imperial Federation, the federal voters might conventionally be called British or Britannic citizens. Otherwise there can be no appropriate use for that expression; unless, indeed, it might be applied to the electors of the national parliaments in Britain and each self-governing Dominion under some future system in which each of those Governments would occupy a sovereign and identical status in relation to matters of foreign policy, defence, India, shipping, and other matters of common concern for which at present a superior responsibility is vested in the Government of Great Britain.

In February 1899 an inter-departmental committee was appointed by Sir Matthew White Ridley, who was then Home Secretary, to inquire into the doubts and difficulties' which had arisen as to the proper interpretation and administration of the naturalisation laws, and to suggest improvements. The report of this Committee, which appeared in 1901, is an interesting introduction to the whole question. Its matter falls into two parts: first, the history and meaning of the

* British Citizenship,' p. 11.

status of a British subject; secondly, the law of naturalisation. In their historical sketch they begin by pointing out the 'fundamental difference between those countries whose law is derived mainly from feudal principles and those countries whose law comes more directly from Roman sources; the former regarding the place of birth as the determining factor in constituting the relation of Sovereign and Subject, while the latter look to the nationality of the parent and disregard (more or less) the place of birth. Although the statute law of most countries has introduced certain modifications of each of these principles, the difference springing from the original sources of the system of law still remains.'

From this difference of principle cases arise of what is called 'double nationality,' when two Governments are able to claim simultaneously the allegiance of the same person. The Committee urged that efforts should be made to conclude conventions with foreign countries with a view to settling the nationality in such cases according to definite rules.

In Britain the law of naturalisation has been partly Common Law and partly Statute Law. To the Common Law belongs the fundamental principle that any person who is born within His Majesty's dominions is from the moment of his birth a British subject, whatever may be the nationality of either or both of his parents, and however temporary and casual the circumstances determining the locality of his birth may have been.' The Common Law regarded the status thus acquired as indelible. Its rule was, Nemo potest exuere patriam. But that rule has been modified by modern legislation, which has provided means for terminating in certain cases the status of a British subject. The Committee thought that the procedure might be improved. But they did not recommend any extension of the principle, feeling that 'evidence as to the place of birth affords in most cases a simple and easy proof of British nationality for which it would be difficult to find a satisfactory substitute.'

Some apparent exceptions to the rule that British nationality is determined by place of birth are not really exceptions at all. The real principle is that all persons born within the ligeance' of the Crown are British

subjects. Accordingly the child of a foreign invader, born in the invader's camp on British soil, would not be a British subject. Nor would a foreigner's child born in the Embassy, which is regarded as part of the territory of the foreign country. The only real exception seems to be the case of the King's son, who by Common Law is recognised as a British subject wherever born. For the rest, the acquisition of British subjecthood by virtue of parentage rests on Statute law. A person whose father or paternal grandfather was born within His Majesty's dominions' is deemed a natural-born British subject, although he or she was born abroad. Feeling that on this point the law was somewhat confusing, the Committee recommended that no person born outside the King's dominions should be deemed a British subject unless the father had been born within the ligeance and was himself a British subject at the time of the child's birth. And, since some doubt existed as to whether the law did or did not apply throughout the King's dominions, they recommended that, with the suggested modification, it should be made of universal application. The proposal that no progenitor more remote than the father should be regarded in determining what persons are British subjects by virtue of parentage, was the principal reform suggested by the Committee in respect of natural-born British subjects.

Another and minor difficulty is that it is not certain what places come into the category of the King's dominions. The Committee thought that Protectorates and Spheres of Influence ought to be excluded. But a British ship should be included wherever it happens to be; and, they suggested, a person born on a foreign ship should not be deemed a British subject merely because the ship was in British waters at the time.

The other part of their inquiry, relating to the admission of foreigners to British subjecthood, led them to proposals of wider scope. The existing law is itself comparatively modern, and remarkably liberal compared with the condition of affairs which preceded it. Prior to 1844 an alien could only acquire any of the rights of a British subject in one of two ways. He might get a special act of parliament passed for his benefit; and acts of this kind used to be numerous both

in Britain and in the colonies. Or, he might get 'letters of denization,' i.e. a certificate direct from the Sovereign, who still retains the ancient prerogative of in this way creating British subjects at his own discretion. The Committee did not quarrel with the survival of denization. As regards the other method, however, they thought that a further improvement in the existing law of naturalisation should practically obviate occasion for any further special acts of parliament, and prevent the confusion which has been apt to arise through the negligent drafting of these instruments.

The year 1844 witnessed the passage of an Act* intended to facilitate the naturalisation of aliens by affording a comparatively simple process, namely, the issue of a certificate by the Secretary of State at his own discretion. The applicant was required to submit a memorial stating his age, profession, etc. In 1856 the Secretary of State was advised that it would be lawful to require the alien to declare his intention of residing and settling in some part of the United Kingdom; and this advice was acted upon. It may here be noted that the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State (subject to any limiting conditions that parliament may prescribe) is a principle which the Committee of 1899 upheld.

The next important Act (1870) introduced changes summarised in the Committee's Report as follows:

(1) Removal of the restrictions upon the acquisition and holding of real and personal property by aliens in the United Kingdom, except property in British ships.

'(2) Requirement, as a condition of a grant of a certificate of naturalisation, of (prior) residence of five years in the United Kingdom, or of service under the Crown for the same period, and of intention of continuing so to reside or serve after naturalisation.

'(3) Limitation of the principle that British nationality is indelible (a) by permitting a natural-born British subject, who also at his birth became a subject of a foreign State, to divest himself of British nationality, (b) by making the loss of British nationality a necessary and immediate consequence of voluntary naturalisation in a foreign country.

'(4) Detailed provisions as to the effect of naturalisation

*Repealed by the Act of 1870.

or loss of nationality by the husband or father upon the status of the wife and children.

'(5) Provisions for the readmission or renaturalisation of a person who had lost his British nationality.'

The second of the above innovations has had the effect of aggravating the Imperial anomaly of localised naturalisation. An alien in process of qualifying for British subjecthood by residence in the United Kingdom or any Dominion cannot migrate to another part of the Empire without losing, so to speak, the residence already performed. He must begin all over again. And when, having completed the required term of residence, he applies for his certificate, he will disqualify himself at once if he announces his intention of migrating to any other part of the Empire instead of continuing to reside in the country where he is applying.

In considering what further changes might now be desirable, the Committee had regard to the reasons why foreigners wish to be naturalised in the United Kingdom. The incapacity of aliens to hold property, which used to be the chief motive, had long since disappeared, surviving only in respect of British ships. But an alien remains incapable of being a member of the Privy Council, or of either House of Parliament, or of holding any municipal office, or of voting in any municipal or parliamentary election, or of holding any office or place of trust, civil or military. It is to overcome these disqualifications that many of the applications are made.

Another frequent motive is when a parent desires to enter his children for commissions in the army or navy, or for the Civil Service examinations, which are closed to aliens. In the same way, Englishmen who have become naturalised in a foreign country sometimes wish for the sake of their children to revert to their status as British subjects.

A less respectable motive is that of a foreigner who seeks in 'double nationality' a refuge from compulsory military training in his own country while continuing to reside there. But the Committee remark that the belief prompting this manœuvre is usually mistaken,' because if the man still owes allegiance to his own country, under its laws, a concurrent status as British